Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) and others in Congress on Thursday strongly criticized President Bush for failing to forcefully condemn the execution of protesters in China. Mitchell said he is upset by what he called Bush's "refusal" to express the revulsion the American people feel about recent events in China. He suggested that Bush is being a follower on the issue, allowing other world leaders to speak out. "The United States, as the leader of the world's democracies, as the symbol of freedom throughout the world, should be leading, not following, in this instance," Mitchell said.

In China, 40 years of Communist propaganda have had an unintended effect. In the "People's Republic," everything was the "People's this . . . " and the "People's that . . . " Every horror (and every gain) was carried out in the name of the people. What the Communists hoped was what George Orwell feared: that the words would change their meaning, that the language itself would become the slave of the state. But the words did not change their meaning. What happened instead was the destruction of any basis for legitimacy other than popular sovereignty.

Here are excerpts, translated by the official New China News Agency, from a speech by Premier Li Peng about the student demonstrations: The capital is in a critical situation. The anarchic state is going from bad to worse, and law and discipline are being violated. More and more students and other people were involved in demonstrations and many colleges and universities had come to a standstill. Traffic jams took place everywhere, the party and government offices were affected and public security was deteriorating.

By taking the Communist Party line that treating espionage against U.S. national laboratories seriously is racist, Tom Plate does a disservice to every Chinese American and more so to the people of China ("Cox Report Was 'an Exercise in Amateur-Hour Paranoia,' " Commentary, July 21). It is Orwellian to suggest that supporting the Chinese people requires supporting the Communist government or turning a blind eye to the theft of sensitive military secrets. As the father of China's democracy movement, Wei Jingsheng, and I have written together (Commentary, June 4)

Despite repeated official denials, the changes in the U.S. policy toward Taiwan and China have been quite drastic and alarming. It is hardly recognizable that the biggest democracy in the world still has the will to support freedom and human rights against totalitarianism and oppression. Thanks to the accurate analysis of Jim Mann (Nov. 10) and Greg Mastel (Opinion, Nov. 14), we now know the reasons for such major policy changes. The Clinton administration, teamed up with multinational corporations, would like to trade the Taiwanese people for the potential market benefit from China.

A joint venture agreement between Genisco Computers Corp. and a computer company from the People's Republic of China is moving a step closer to completion as a result of meetings being held this week between representatives of the two companies. Peter J. Shaw, president and chief executive of the Costa Mesa-based company, said Genisco and Hunan Computer Co.

June 10, 1989 | DONALD KENNEDY, Donald Kennedy, a biologist, is president of Stanford University.

A collateral aspect of the events in China--I'm a little surprised that it is not more broadly recognized--is the degree to which American higher education exerts a powerful force upon the life of nations. Our universities have become the world's gold standard and our most successful export. They are contributing enormously to our international stature, and to the strength and influence of the position we may occupy among the nations of the 21st Century. Let me begin an account of this remarkable development with a story.

In "The Folly of Bullying Beijing" (Opinion, July 6), Henry Kissinger suggests that Taiwan would possibly "rekindle the Chinese civil war." This is ludicrous. Taiwan, unlike the People's Republic of China, has renounced any intentions of using force in dealing with the Taiwan/PRC issue. Taiwan is currently trying to convince Beijing to reopen talks in order to decrease tensions and come to a position where peaceful and constructive negotiations in several realms can take place. It is the PRC that continues to be unwilling to sit down and communicate in this manner.

I am writing to express my outrage at Robert Dallek's comments on the China-Taiwan conflict (Opinion, March 17). He proposed for the U.S. to negotiate with China an agreement that will "bring Taiwan into Beijing's orbit in 12 or 15 years, with guarantees of economic and political freedoms comparable to those given Hong Kong." What makes him think Beijing is capable of keeping a promise or has the credibility to make a promise is beyond me. Beijing has promised the U.S. not to sell missiles to Iran and Pakistan.